D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Micah Sweet]

If you take one part off it, does it stop being a truck?

I don't know. Have you driven the truck yet? And to remove the metaphor, can you un-tell a story?

 

[AnotherGuy]

My preference is to see the campaign as an exploration of the setting by the players through their PCs, not as a story with protagonists and a plot.

For the record, I have not been following this thread, but I was curious as to why this topic was still ongoing and now I have seen why, as typically threads of this size take a completely different course to the OP. Anyways the last few pages caught my eye...
I've seen you mention this before on Enworld about story and it confuses me.
I also enjoy the exploration of the setting (as @pemerton has described it in the past setting tourism) but isn't the evolving story also part of that exploration? I can understand not liking a particular style of story generation, but I see exploration of setting to include

• lore behind the world/cosmos, the way magic works, the land's history...etc;
• the characters brought to life by the DM;
• the peculiarities of the setting; and
• the evolving story as per the adventure path planned by the DM

Seeing the game that way feels less realistic and immersive to me, because as a PC I don't want to have any consideration about "telling my character's story", and as the DM I don't want that from the players. What I want is to explore and interact with a world through my PC that feels as real as possible, and I want to think about my character's narrative role in that world as little as possible, because that is a distraction that takes me out of play.

This I understand.
What about character goals and motivations, do you try find a way to provide ways for PCs to pursue them should they want to or do you solely focus on the adventure path?

 

[soviet]

Perhaps, but if so roleplaying games should probably stop using the term over and over again in their text with varying meanings.

Many words have different meanings in different contexts. As long as the game itself is clear how you play it, I don't see an issue.

 

[tetrasodium]

If you take one part off it, does it stop being a truck?

That kinda ship of thesius thing is so far outside the analogy that it raises the question of if you understood it. Is the point of play to enjoy yourselves as a group and walk away with memories that you could later recall & retell as a story --OR-- Is the point of play simply to give an excuse to add some randomness to a story that you've already decided?

If it's the first then the focus on protecting anyone's characters from death to preserve/play out a story is somewhat or significantly in conflict with the point of play. If it's the second then it raises all kinds of questions about the definition of "story" being used and seems somewhat or significantly in conflict with any definition of "playing d&d"

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the record, I have not been following this thread, but I was curious as to why this topic was still ongoing and now I have seen why, as typically threads of this size take a completely different course to the OP. Anyways the last few pages caught my eye...
I've seen you mention this before on Enworld about story and it confuses me.
I also enjoy the exploration of the setting (as @pemerton has described it in the past setting tourism) but isn't the evolving story also part of that exploration? I can understand not liking a particular style of story generation, but I see exploration of setting to include

• lore behind the world/cosmos, the way magic works, the land's history...etc;
• the characters brought to life by the DM;
• the peculiarities of the setting; and
• the evolving story as per the adventure path planned by the DM

This I understand.
What about character goals and motivations, do you try find a way to provide ways for PCs to pursue them should they want to or do you solely focus on the adventure path?

I don't plan an adventure path (beyond perhaps an introduction). I DM sandbox games with maps and adventure hooks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The creativity itself and the process thereof exists in the "now", sure. No argument there.

But the result - the story, the music, whatever - doesn't exist in any useful form until after it is created; when the music reaches the ear of the listener either then or, via a recording, later; or when a written story reaches the eyes of its readers. And here the result - i.e. the end output as seen/heard later - is what we're talking about as being story.

Put another way, I could (and do) have story ideas in my head right now but until I get on and do something with them that's all they are: ideas. And if I put down some notes on those ideas that's all they are: notes (or, to use a sometimes more accurate term, game prep ). But any story that might grow out of those notes doesn't yet exist.

I don't disagree with this point, but I want to highlight that the process you are talking about is pretty fast in regards to DnD. If it isn't a story until it is created... but you are creating it moment to moment, you are creating story moment to moment.

I keep reaching for analogies, because seeing it other contexts I think showcases why this is so absurd to me. Take cooking a dinner. If you claimed that you cannot cook a dinner, because Dinner only exists once it is finished being cooked.... that is nonsensical. The act of creating something is the process by which that thing is created, so saying there is no story in DnD until the events happen at the table, while accurate, doesn't mean that there is no story in DnD. And that is the claim that is being made. That there is no story in DnD, none at all, until someone looks back on a game of DnD and tells a story based on the events that happened at the table. It isn't Dinner until it is cooked, served, eaten, and then someone points out it was dinner to a stranger. That isn't how that works logically.

There's another possible delimiter here: that a story doesn't functionally exist until someone else other than its creator(s) has access to it via reading it, hearing it, seeing it performed, or whatever means, even if that access is never used.

Complete disagreement. I guess you could string together some philosophy about whether or not a story exists is only one person has read it, but this falls apart immediately in regards to DnD regardless. Because a GROUP of people create the story. So, a story doesn't exist if only the people who made and experienced it know about it? Then what are family stories? Do you not have a story of a family vacation if the only people who have been told the story are the people who were there and involved in making the story? It ONLY becomes a story when a non-participant is told?

I don't think so. This doesn't make sense to me. Even if we accept the fact (which I don't) that a story or poem only read by its creator does not exist in a meaningful manner.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That, like playing freeform jazz or doing completely-improv theatre, is about experiencing the creative process in the moment; the process that produces music or a story or whatever, but not experiencing the finished product in part because they're still too busy creating more of it.

The audience (if any) gets to experience the finished product then and there, the creators don't until-unless they go back and listen to or watch a recording of what they created in that moment.

This make a distinction that does not exist though.

Currently One Piece is not completed. It is not finished. So is it therefore not a story, despite being a story that has been shared around the world for the last 25 years? No. Now, you may argue that parts of the story are finished and that is the difference... but then the moment a DnD session is over, or a scene being played out at the table that part of the story is completed it has also been finished and therefore follows the exact same logic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

An analogy: I could have hundreds of parts scattered around the lawn and (if I had the know how!) I could take all those parts and properly put them together to build a Ford F-150. I might even enjoy the process of building that truck, but it still ain't a truck until I'm finished; and I don't get to enjoy driving it until after I'm finished.

Driving the truck - that's the story. Everything that came before that point - including standing there and admiring my handiwork when the truck is finished but I haven't started 'er up yet - is part of the creative process of (in this case, literally) building that story.

If it isn't a truck, what are you building? What do you tell people you are building?

And I disagree entirely that "driving the truck" is the story, because that only happens after the entire thing is over and done with. Making a story with my friends can be done even if the story is never completed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The creativity itself and the process thereof exists in the "now", sure. No argument there.

But the result - the story, the music, whatever - doesn't exist in any useful form until after it is created; when the music reaches the ear of the listener either then or, via a recording, later; or when a written story reaches the eyes of its readers. And here the result - i.e. the end output as seen/heard later - is what we're talking about as being story.

Improvisational jazz does not exist in any useful form, because it doesn't exist in any form, unless it is currently being performed. That's the whole point. It only exists Now. It does not exist Before, because it is improvised, developed on the spot in response to the current situation, participants, etc. And it does not exist After, because it isn't ever written down in the first place. The whole point is that the art, the experience, only exists in the moment of producing it, and no other time.

Put another way, I could (and do) have story ideas in my head right now but until I get on and do something with them that's all they are: ideas. And if I put down some notes on those ideas that's all they are: notes (or, to use a sometimes more accurate term, game prep ). But any story that might grow out of those notes doesn't yet exist.

This only applies to written, collated stories. It does not apply to a wide variety of other storytelling methods. Hence why I referenced things like improvisational acting, extemporaneous delivery in speeches, and jazz.

Another example: Philosophy. While I have many disagreements with Socrates about the alleged awfulness of the written word (his arguments read like every "these kids with their newfangled thing are going to be the death of culture and learning!!!"), there really is a kernel of truth in it, specifically when it comes to the study of philosophy. An argument merely inscribed upon a page is dead. It has no power, no life, no use. It is only when we are putting these ideas to the test, whether through discussion, observation, or demonstration, that they actually have value.

I agree that the notes are not the story yet though. But the notes that come after the play may not be the story either. Instead, for some styles of play, the story is in the moment to moment action, just as jazz is in the moment to moment "right" choices for the next note, the next chord; or how the story of a live rap battle is in the back-and-forth between the contestants, which would lose its most valuable aspect by being nailed down, trimmed up, pressed, laminated.

Some stories--indeed, probably most stories!--are Story Before (a fiction conceived in advance of actually experiencing it) or Story After (a cleaned-up and collected accounting of someone's experiences after those experiences have ended). TTRPGs permit a process of storytelling where the story occurs in the moment of the experience happening, and that is what Story Now aims for. Not all games are or should be that way. Indeed, I suspect most games shouldn't work that way. But this emphatically is not some bizarro non-story just because it is happening in the moment of the experience. It is perfectly valid to understand story forming as the person experiences something, even in purely real-world stuff. "Live tweeting" or "live blogging" is a recent example; reading something like a real person's journals, recorded as they experienced their life rather than written down after the experiences have fully finalized, is very much a written form of Story Now.

There's another possible delimiter here: that a story doesn't functionally exist until someone else other than its creator(s) has access to it via reading it, hearing it, seeing it performed, or whatever means, even if that access is never used.

I mean, sure, but you already included in that the "it must be live" options: not just a reader perusing a fossilized story, but a literal "audi"ence, people hearing or witnessing a live performance. As an example, I've been led to believe that you can't truly experience the Rocky Horror Picture Show unless you attend a live performance, because it is designed to involve audience participation; to experience it without such audience participation is to fail to actually get the "story" of the work. Hence, by that standard, it is a story that cannot possibly exist in the way you demand a story exist, as a fossilized entity on slices of processed dead tree.

Edit: That said, having now read Chaosmancer's analysis, I'm a lot less persuaded by this. Plenty of stories exist that are known only to their creator(s).

 

[Lanefan]

Improvisational jazz does not exist in any useful form, because it doesn't exist in any form, unless it is currently being performed. That's the whole point. It only exists Now. It does not exist Before, because it is improvised, developed on the spot in response to the current situation, participants, etc. And it does not exist After, because it isn't ever written down in the first place.

Unless someone recorded it as it was being played.

The whole point is that the art, the experience, only exists in the moment of producing it, and no other time.

The experience, yes. The act of creation, yes. The end-result music for anyone else to hear, no (again, unless someone happened to record it).

This only applies to written, collated stories. It does not apply to a wide variety of other storytelling methods. Hence why I referenced things like improvisational acting, extemporaneous delivery in speeches, and jazz.

And RPG play, assuming someone's keeping an ongoing game log, produces as its end result a written, collated story, even if said story has no idea what the "structure" of a story looks like.

Another example: Philosophy. While I have many disagreements with Socrates about the alleged awfulness of the written word (his arguments read like every "these kids with their newfangled thing are going to be the death of culture and learning!!!"), there really is a kernel of truth in it, specifically when it comes to the study of philosophy. An argument merely inscribed upon a page is dead. It has no power, no life, no use. It is only when we are putting these ideas to the test, whether through discussion, observation, or demonstration, that they actually have value.

We could argue this all day long, but I choose not to.

I agree that the notes are not the story yet though. But the notes that come after the play may not be the story either. Instead, for some styles of play, the story is in the moment to moment action, just as jazz is in the moment to moment "right" choices for the next note, the next chord; or how the story of a live rap battle is in the back-and-forth between the contestants, which would lose its most valuable aspect by being nailed down, trimmed up, pressed, laminated.

This conflates experience with story. The experience is what happens in the moment. The story is what you tell people later.

Some stories--indeed, probably most stories!--are Story Before (a fiction conceived in advance of actually experiencing it) or Story After (a cleaned-up and collected accounting of someone's experiences after those experiences have ended).

Story Before, as you define it here, IMO isn't (yet) story at all. Story After is just Story, period.

TTRPGs permit a process of storytelling where the story occurs in the moment of the experience happening, and that is what Story Now aims for. Not all games are or should be that way. Indeed, I suspect most games shouldn't work that way. But this emphatically is not some bizarro non-story just because it is happening in the moment of the experience. It is perfectly valid to understand story forming as the person experiences something, even in purely real-world stuff. "Live tweeting" or "live blogging" is a recent example; reading something like a real person's journals, recorded as they experienced their life rather than written down after the experiences have fully finalized, is very much a written form of Story Now.

Story Now, as you define it here, again conflates story with experience. A journal is a story, almost without exception written after the things being written about have been experienced by the author. Rare indeed is the journal-writer who writes about things in the very moment they are being experienced (and who by so doing would be tainting the experience anyway).

I mean, sure, but you already included in that the "it must be live" options: not just a reader perusing a fossilized story, but a literal "audi"ence, people hearing or witnessing a live performance. As an example, I've been led to believe that you can't truly experience the Rocky Horror Picture Show unless you attend a live performance, because it is designed to involve audience participation; to experience it without such audience participation is to fail to actually get the "story" of the work.

This is a perfect example of conflating "story" with "experience".

The story of RHPS is that a couple of people get lost on a rainy night, end up at a castle, in that castle a bunch of very strange things happen, etc.

The experience of RHPS is that of sitting in a theater watching it with a bunch of hard-core nutball fans doing their thing.

You can (and probably will!) tell the story of that movie-watching experience later.